Forum:Voting Policy
__NOEDITSECTION__ Voting ended Tuesday, July 25st. Voting is now over and the policy is in effect. Talk to me.('''NCIS|'SWF'|'SW'|'SPMF')' 12:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC) ---- Due to recent events, a voting policy has been proposed. Please vote for the specifics below. If you have your own ideas that are not list yet, feel free to propose your own idea under the appropriate category, as long as it is different from the other rules proposed at the time. If seen by the admins to be a copy, whether exactly the same or not, your vote will be transfered and your proposed policy deleted. Please put it under the appropriate Rule, use this format: Version (next number in line here) *Put rule. Please keep it to a single point. If the rule has more than one points, please seperate it into multiple rules, if possible :'Plus''' : :Minus'' : Support #Sign with four tildes (~~~~) Comments Note: Only vote for one version per each rule. ---- =Rule 1= Okay, any policies about edit requirements are here. Version 1 *You must have 5 Main Edits and 125 overall edits to vote. :'''Plus :Makes it so that users like me, who are here to keep the wiki running opposed to creating fanon, are allowed to vote, as well as stops sockpuppeting in its tracks. :Minus :It will take time for new users to vote, though that time should teach them whats good and whats bad for the wiki. Support Comments Version 2 *You must have 25 Main Edits to vote. :Plus :Will prevent some sockpuppeting, but allow news users to vote after 25 edits, by which time they should have an idea of what would be good for teh wiki and what would be bad. Prevents easy sockpuppeting. :Minus :Makes users like me unelligible for voting and new users will have to work a little to be able to vote. Support Comments Version 3 *You must have 25 Main Edits or 100 total edits to vote. :Plus :Will prevent some sockpuppeting, but allow news users to vote after 25 edits, by which time they should have an idea of what would be good for teh wiki and what would be bad. Also, users like me can vote by the time they have contributed quite a bit to Transfanon. :Minus :Users like me will really have to put some work in before they can vote, whereas the normal user has it a lot easier. Support #Yes. In response to rule one: Its easier. In response to rule two: better for me. In response to rule four (second best to me): It allows users a time to figure out whats what, whereas if they hop right in, they may vote incorrectly. AKA, a user who is new may think that they should vote for 'so-and-so' for UotM, cause he's funny, where people who have at least have been around for a little know that he hasn't been around a long time, has very few edits, etc (the example user was not based on anyway, promise). Anyway, in my opinion this is the best! Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] #Yes. Per Shadow. Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 19:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Comments This proposal will remove the voting privileges of everyone who has ever created, edited or contributed to an article on this website with the exception of: General Grham: 1223 edits. Shadowphobia: 250 edits. Troyb: 236 edits. Darthtyler: 201 edits. ItsWalky: 113 edits. I understand there's a need to suppress sock puppet activity, but if you're telling me that sock puppet voting isn't already illegal, then this vote could be won tomorrow, at a count of 6000 to 2. Won by a small army of users with oddly similar user names to my own, differentiated only by minor variations in spelling. :(That was a joke.) The voting limit is unnecessary and currently inappropriate given how new the site is. The idea of getting used to the wiki is nice in theory, but seeing as many of us have already gained much of our experience on several other of wikia's fine sites, it's rather pointless. User ItsWalky, as admin of the massive Transformers wiki, has made (no exaggeration) tens of thousands of edits. Yet, by this rule, he only gained enough experience to vote here, last week. Wait until we have enough users actually contributing any sort of content, before you start imposing restrictions on those who haven't contributed enough. -Sarrc 05:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Version 4 *No Edit requirement. :'Plus''' :Allows new users to vote immediately, which will A: get them involved with the community, and B: might induce them to stay. (Also, makes the admins look nice...) :Minus :Sockpuppeting is much, much harder to control. Also, new users may not have time to figure out whats best for the wiki, and may vote according to their original thoughts opposed to what they might learn with time on the wiki. Support Comments AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC) =Rule 2, 3 and 4= I'm figuring that no one will have any rules that are better than these, so I put them together. If necessary, I will ungroup them. Version 1 *Sockpuppet votes are ineligible. *IP votes are ineligible. *Banned/Vandal user votes are ineligible. :Plus :Prevents bad votes, duh. :Minus :None. Support #Per plus. Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] #Take a guess. Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Comments =Rule 5= This deals with voting for yourself and your articles Version 1 *You are allowed to vote for both yourself and your articles. :'Plus''' :Keeps it simple, unlike Star Wars Fanon, where your can't vote for yourself but can vote for your article. :Minus :Preferance. Some users may like no voting for yourself or your articles. Support #Refer to plus. Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] ::On most voting things, it says under "nominating" whether you can do that or not, so I think that this rule isn't really needed. Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC) :::Ah. I see why you removed it. Nevertheless, I think we should leave it up. Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] #I mussst agree.Troyb(CIS ShadowFeed) 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Comments Version 2 *You are not allowed to vote for either yourself nor your articles. :Plus :Keeps it simple, unlike Star Wars Fanon, where your can't vote for yourself but can vote for your article. :Minus :Preferance. Some users may like being able voting for yourself or your articles. Support Comments =Rule 6= Any rules that do not fall under the above categories, of any variaty. The Administration will format and add new sections if needed; please leave the formatting to them and just use the given format above. =Discussion/Comments= :FYI #1:This was simply transfered to a proposed policy page that no one was paying any attention to. :FYI #2:General Grham created this thread, not I. (Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) #Yeah. Funny how I'm voting for a rule that, if in place, will prevent me from voting. Well...thats the way of it. Phobi[[User talk:Shadowphobia|''Speak To the Almighty...]] 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) ::Thats the spirit! lol [[User:General Grham|'General Grham' ]]Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC) #I support. It might cut down on potential sockpuppets. Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 10:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC) #I find 25 main votes requirement excessive. I fear it might prevent newer users from trying to get involved. I don't see why you should need anything except maybe a little recent activity to show they aren't a sock puppet, but more important: a valid point. How about this: votes without explanations need the edit minimum, votes with a valid point should be heard regardless. 'Valid' not as in the nature of their arguement, but more like, a statement that's not just "yeah" or "per that guy." If someone has a good point to make, I don't think we should ignore it just because they only have ten main edits. -Sarrc 01:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC) ::25 excessive? On SWF they have it at 250. It would also give a very new user some time to see the works of this wiki, know the policies, and know this wiki better. They would learn exactly what an article should have, per policy (on FA voting) and they would learn what kind of users should have UOTM. I support the policy. Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 10:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC) :::Ohhhh. I guess I made a mistake. Wrong defination of main edits. It will be changed. Sorry about that. Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 11:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC) ::New policy misses the point in a whole new way. SW Fanon requires that many because they are well established with many, many users. Plus, they’re not voting on the most basic stuff in their first two weeks of existence. The "and 125 overall edits" would remove the voting rights of everyone except Grham, DarthTyler, and Shadowphobia. The rule might work better later, after we're a little more established, but that's terribly inappropriate timing while we're trying to pass all the basic policies and style guide. -Sarrc 14:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC) :::You do have a good point. I'm thinking that it might be better if I closed the vote until we get more users....... Talk to me. NCIS Wiki 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC) :::: Well, I don't think the whole thing needs to be scrapped. Just the vote requirement for now. I mean, take for example some of Hooper X's articles. Nice full detailed articles, with only three or four edits. He either writes it out in word and pastes it in later, or he's using the wiki correctly, and uses the preview button. 125 edits this early in the game only shows you're making a lot of templates and categories, because The only reason a regular editor would have that many is if they're very indecisive. You should definitely keep the three parts that are just common sense, just wait a while on the first part. Keep it at "no sock puppets, no banned, no IP." and at a later date, propose an amendment when there are enough users and articles to warrant it. -Sarrc 15:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC) ::::: I think one's vote should be void if he has a graphic in his signature. You know, to discourage that kind of activity. --ItsWalky 01:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)